age 60+ airline guys......

[LearLove]

I have no problem with 60+ guys flying any type/size equipment. Its just that a large group of these guys got to move up their whole career based mostly on the ones older than them (ww2 and korea era pilots) retiring at 60 now they don't want to play the game. especially the "silver spoon" guys hired in the late 70's early 80's at places like UAL/DAL/AA/AAA. these guys have hardly had a hiccup. especially since the mid 80's. now they have the best pay and skeds and got there because someone before them retired at 60 but they don't want to play by the same rules. thats BS. these silver spoons have been raking in 150K+ since 1985 - if they don't have enough to retire on that alone then they only have themselves to blame.

 

[WickedPissa]

They can't because of their 5 ex wives, all their toys, piss poor planning, and face it, no social life.

You're just sad because he has toys, and you don't, and he has been la$d at least 5 times with his ex-es and you are a virgin.

 

[Nindiri]

You're just sad because he has toys, and you don't, and he has been la$d at least 5 times with his ex-es and you are a virgin.

Ouch! :laugh:

 

[Klamath]

Age 65 at SAS.

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2615859.ece

If you are 60+ and are complaining about being bullied by younger pilots, then you my friend, are a Pu$$y.

If you are a 60+ Captain, act like one and don't put up with insolence. Lead by example, know your sh!t and be on top of your game.

In your declining years, if your spine becomes yellow, that is another indicator that it's time to hang up the hat.

If you are still capable of leading, be a LEADER.

Sorry, harsh but true, and now I get off my soapbox.

 

[Flopgut]

IF you were to get furloughed, and IF you were fortunate enough to get hired by a fractional, you just might find yourself flying with a 68 year old Captain who retired from 121 flying at age 60. Would that change your opinion of "old people" ?

That 68 year old pilot either had to work or needed to work. The big difference between him and the guys who stay at the airline with the new rule: He had to interview. The fractional isn't forced to hire every old guy that applys. The new rule requires nothing of a pilot who wants to stay with the airline. The airline will furlough and otherwise marginalize junior pilots in favor of keeping senior pilots who very likely couldn't get hired at a fractional or anywhaere else. CAL's recent early outs spotlighted this. Pilots who had taken care of themselves financially, and who are still viable enough to get a new job, did so. It is the perpetually needy, unprepared and unequiped guys who are going to stay and that is going to become even more so the case as time wears on. Now I admit that this doesn't describe all the age 60+ guys taying on at the airline, but it does describe a majority.

 

[Flopgut]

Look EVERYONE'S career was affected by the new law. Some guys will get stuck flying crappy lines for 5 more years.

Some guys won't be able to upgrade or get off reserve for 5 years.

Some guys won't get hired for 5 years.

But, the law isn't changing. And the fact of the matter is, the change wasn't due to lobbying by the old guys. It was a response to the change in the ICAO regs.

And, guess what, it isn't changing back. So get over it, and move on. Unless you're fond of peeing in the wind...

I'm watching the Wall Street bailout. The fallout is going to be salary caps for certain people and protections built in for those affected. Going forward we need to perhaps pattern what is going on there. Age 65 was no less a bailout! Financed by the profession because Prater didn't have the balls or the savvy to get it where he should have. The profession needs to have some say and some protections. Sure the rule probably isn't going to change back, but we can change the way we deal with it in the future. Age 60 needs to be preserved as a retirement age and to do that we should consider halving pilot salary past age 60.

 

[Fubijaakr]

Hey, f4l, I hate to break it to you, but I'll be flying crappy redeyes for about 5 additional years, too. The point is, EVERYONE'S career was impacted, but biatching about it isn't going to change things ONE IOTA.

Age 60 is gone and it ain't coming back, so get over it and get on with your life.

 

[hoover]

I have no problem with 60+ guys flying any type/size equipment. Its just that a large group of these guys got to move up their whole career based mostly on the ones older than them (ww2 and korea era pilots) retiring at 60 now they don't want to play the game. especially the "silver spoon" guys hired in the late 70's early 80's at places like UAL/DAL/AA/AAA. these guys have hardly had a hiccup. especially since the mid 80's. now they have the best pay and skeds and got there because someone before them retired at 60 but they don't want to play by the same rules. thats BS. these silver spoons have been raking in 150K+ since 1985 - if they don't have enough to retire on that alone then they only have themselves to blame.

And therein lies the crux of the situation: guys like this who are just jealous of someone else's successful career and bitter that things haven't worked out the same way for him.

It's got nothing to do with "not wanting to play by the same rules." The rules have changed and he is taking advantage of it, just as I would expect him or anyone else to do.

There are no promises in life. All you can do is ante up and take your best shot.

I don't know why, but for some reason pilots just can't stand it when they think someone else has made out better tan themselves. Here's a piece of advice: Spend your time enjoying what you have, rather than worrying about what you don't have (or what somone else does), because I am reasonably certain that your lot in life is probably better than 70% of the rest of the world.

 

[flying4life]

fubijaakr,

You are totally right about complaining about it! I'm not complaining, I'm asking for some older guys who have been around long enough to know better to hold their tongues. There are some senior pilots here who are under the impression that nothing negative has happened as a result of the implementation of the rule change. That attitude is all I'm trying to address. At my company, over 60 guys who had already been out of the left seat were put back in it. That action had an impact besides just extending how long someone will be in a seat. Be that as it may, it does not require a bunch of narrow minded self centered jerks who benefited from it to shove it someone elses face!! I'm not complaining of the rule change, how it's effected my career, or how it's impacted others. I'm asking the fortunate ones who weren't expecting to get an extension or reinstatement to the most senior position to have some humility about their fortunate opportunities. It's that simple, just be humble..if that's possible...and appreciate your blessings instead of telling others to get over it.

As far as the rule change go's, I'm a younger pilot. I hate the rule in the first place. I'm one of the lucky ones who enjoys his job. I like what I do and am glad for that. Personally, I don't want anyone to tell me when to hang it up. At the same time, I don't want my career path to cause a negative impact on others. I don't think I would have gone back to the front after I was already removed from the seat, but I'm also willing to say that I'm not in that circumstance. Either way, to those who have and throw it in the face of others and say deal with it....I think they suck.....good day to you sir

 

[Flopgut]

I'm somewhat encouraged. The Wall Street bailout is going to spotlight what has happened to us. it's obvious age 65 was a bailout. Prater said as much with his "the FO that get's it" webcast BS. Well, obviously some things have changed and bailing out the old guys is costing us more than it should. Since no one takes a benefit until the day they turn 60, that's where the cutoff ought to be. We've had B scales and half votes before. Let's get it in the CBAs. Cut their pay and get some dough headed toward the furloughs and make everyone whole up to age 60. Keep 60 as a normal retirement age!

Prater had the chance to do this right. He should be hammering for a bailout in front of the automakers. He should have been speaking out against the half effort the ATSB turned out to be. Nope. He folded like a lawn chair and then turned to the bottom half of the profession for his bailout. We're going to see executive pay get trimmed in favor of protecting the taxpayer in the Wall Street bailout. We need to see age 60+ earnings trimmed in favor of those of us picking up that tab.

 

[CitationUltra]

I'm somewhat encouraged. The Wall Street bailout is going to spotlight what has happened to us. it's obvious age 65 was a bailout. Prater said as much with his "the FO that get's it" webcast BS. Well, obviously some things have changed and bailing out the old guys is costing us more than it should. Since no one takes a benefit until the day they turn 60, that's where the cutoff ought to be. We've had B scales and half votes before. Let's get it in the CBAs. Cut their pay and get some dough headed toward the furloughs and make everyone whole up to age 60. Keep 60 as a normal retirement age!

Prater had the chance to do this right. He should be hammering for a bailout in front of the automakers. He should have been speaking out against the half effort the ATSB turned out to be. Nope. He folded like a lawn chair and then turned to the bottom half of the profession for his bailout. We're going to see executive pay get trimmed in favor of protecting the taxpayer in the Wall Street bailout. We need to see age 60+ earnings trimmed in favor of those of us picking up that tab.

News Bulletin for you: 60 is not a normal retirement age in any profession! Doctors don't retire at 60. Lawyers don't. Accountants don't. Business executives don't. This was not a "bailout" of the "old guys." It was the elimination (long overdue) of a systemic industry form of age discrimination. It was a correction of a long, long-standing problem of arbitrary discrimination. No court would uphold restoring the status-quo ante.

SO GET OVER IT.

 

[Flopgut]

News bulletin for you Sir: Wrong! Butt cold wrong. Age 65 was a bailout. Prater called it a bailout in his "the FO who get's it" speech and he also promised he would try to keep age 60 a viable retirement age. We're going to see how the Wall Street bailout pans out for those who do the bailing and then pattern it in our CBAs.

 

[CitationUltra]

News bulletin for you Sir: Wrong! Butt cold wrong. Age 65 was a bailout. Prater called it a bailout in his "the FO who get's it" speech and he also promised he would try to keep age 60 a viable retirement age. We're going to see how the Wall Street bailout pans out for those who do the bailing and then pattern it in our CBAs.

You couldn't possibly be more wrong, because in the bigger picture (don't worry about it--you don't get it) nobody gives a rat's ass what Prater says or thinks. The demise of the "Age 60" forced retirement represents the elimination of one of the very few remaining institutionalized mechanisms of discrimination.

Try to understand that it doesn't matter if that means that a few F/Os who believe they are entitled to the seats held by the previously disenfranchised Captains have to wait another year or two to upgrade. That could have happened due to economic externals anyway. Career progression in commercial aviation is a dice roll. But your sense of entitlement should not be used as a justification for plainly blatant discrimination on the basis of age.

 

[Mamma]

News Bulletin for you: 60 is not a normal retirement age in any profession! Doctors don't retire at 60. Lawyers don't. Accountants don't. Business executives don't. This was not a "bailout" of the "old guys." It was the elimination (long overdue) of a systemic industry form of age discrimination. It was a correction of a long, long-standing problem of arbitrary discrimination. No court would uphold restoring the status-quo ante.

SO GET OVER IT.

Get over it? Military personnel, Air Traffic Controllers, race car drivers, astronauts, professional sport players, people that planned ahead, firemen, policemen....the list goes on and on on those who retire before the age of 60. Why are Air Traffic Controllers "forced" to retire before 60? Isn't it 47? What about firemen? I don't care if you fly till you die. I just think that since you benefited your entire career from this system you should take the high ground on this and shut your pie hole. A lot of guys had their lives ruined by this decision.

 

[JetMonkey]

The main problem as how I see it, is the way the new rule was enacted. It could've been FAZED in slowly. Something like adding a year every 3 to 5 years would've eased the impact, especially with the current economic environment were in. Going from 60 to 65 overnight was completely B.S. and the repercussions of that move are now affecting everyone.

 

[Fubijaakr]

Hey, they didn't phase in the 25 second play clock in the NFL. They didn't phase in the no two line pass rule in the NHL.

They didn't phase in raising the drinking age from 18 to 21.

So why should any new law be phased in? The point is, grousing about it won't change the fact that the current retirement age for Part 121 airline pilots is 65.

Get over it.

 

[Flopgut]

You couldn't possibly be more wrong, because in the bigger picture (don't worry about it--you don't get it) nobody gives a rat's ass what Prater says or thinks. The demise of the "Age 60" forced retirement represents the elimination of one of the very few remaining institutionalized mechanisms of discrimination.

No. I couldn't possibly care less about what you think. Age 65, in the context of my CBA, was a bailout. I'm going to use Prater's own words against him. I'm going to remind my representatives they are in fact my representatives and not my leaders! A correction needs to be made with regard to the effects of age 65 to my CBA.

Of course my effort is uphill so who knows what will happen. But, if I have a little luck and get this done, I'll need to have you on standby to tell the old guys your same BS: of "economic externals", and they aren't "entitled" to anything, blah, blah, blah. OK? This cuts both ways.

 

[mdf]

I agree with Flopgut. It was a bailout. Not a bailout of 60 year old airline pilots, though. It was a bailout of the PBGC, and Criminal CEO's. Yep, work these guy's till they die, and make it look like some big social issue love fest.

 

[Flopgut]

Hey, they didn't phase in the 25 second play clock in the NFL. They didn't phase in the no two line pass rule in the NHL.

They didn't phase in raising the drinking age from 18 to 21.

So why should any new law be phased in? The point is, grousing about it won't change the fact that the current retirement age for Part 121 airline pilots is 65.

Get over it.

Sure it could have been phased in. It could have also been written to allow a more realistic return for those recently retired. Prater chose not to do that as well. It was all about him and the selfish needs of his contemporaries. If the spoils of this new rule had been arbitrated in some sort of seniority tribunal Prater would not have gotten nearly what he took.

Discussing this is an important part of how we proceed with collective bargaining.

 

[Flopgut]

Monday AM Wall Street bailout update: Wow! Sure as he11 didn't get done like the airline bailout! Only people who made out on the airline bailout were mgts, CEOs, and the already spoiled airline passengers. If this doesn't get you riled up there is something wrong with your genes...or, apparantly your a baby boomer and you schedule is sufficient you don't mind this screw job.

I wonder what Prater and some of you others would be doing about this if 65 had not happened? I wonder if you would have the balls to go after who you should, or just be looking for another way to screw your co workers?